"Listening to the nightly news, this appears to be just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups --- and political intimidation --- in this administration," declared the opportunistic Republican Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee during a hearing today on the "scandal" related to the IRS use of Rightwing words such as "Tea Party" to help identify groups applying for tax-exempt status which might be operating in violation of the tax code.

The key phrase there is: "Listening to the nightly news..."

Rep. David Camp (R-MI) was correct in at least that part of his statement. If you listened to the way this supposed "scandal" is being reported by the bulk of the corporate media, you'd think the poorly chosen criteria used by low-level IRS officials in trying to identify taxpayer-subsidized organizations that might be carrying out political operations in violation of the law, was part of a "culture of cover-up" and "political intimidation" on par with Richard Nixon ordering his Dept. of Justice to target political enemies.

Then again, if you listened only to the corporate media, you --- like the Obama Administration --- also probably thought that the phony, trumped-up "scandals" that led to the inappropriate firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod, the cowardly firing of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones and the outrageous federal defunding of ACORN were also the unhappy result of an endemic culture of corruption by the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party and its insidious political apparatchiks.

Those fake scandals, however, all three of them, were shams. They were eventually identified as such, though only after a great deal of harm to Sherrod, Jones and ACORN had already been done by the Democrats who fell for them and acted out of knee-jerk and cowardly fear to try and contain the perception of "scandal" which was, naturally, helped along by the very loud misreporting of "the nightly news".

Our general assessment --- based on the IG's findings --- that this "scandal" appears to be an enormous over-reaction to poorly thought out procedures and lousy management by low-level IRS officials, has been shored up since publishing our article yesterday, both by today's House hearings and by scattered media coverage elsewhere.

As usual, with these things, the Republicans cry "COVER-UP!", "OUTRAGE!", "SCANDAL!"; the corporate media credulously, unskeptically and dutifully reports it as such; the Obama Administration knee-jerks out of fear and starts firing people (like the Acting Commissioner of the IRS who wasn't even at the agency during the period in question) in hopes of showing how they are on top of things and will not tolerate such "outrages!"; and Republicans opportunistically use the entire matter to create a phony sense of partisanship, incompetence and tyranny (seemingly opposite notions, but never mind that) on the part of the Administration.

It works every time, it seems, since the very top-tier corporate media, as well as the Obama Administration, keep falling for it over and over and over again...

"Despite repeated attempts," during today's three-hour U.S. House hearing, according to the Guardian, "Republicans on the committee failed to establish a link between the IRS scandal and either the White House or the 2012 Obama re-election campaign."

While Steven Miller, the now-fired Acting IRS Commissioner (it was a George W. Bush appointee who left last year who actually headed the agency during the period in question) "conceded that 'foolish' mistakes were made by people trying to be more 'efficient'," the Guardian reports, adding: "No new major details about the scandal emerged" during hearings which they describe as having "fizzled".

"I do not believe partisanship motivated the people involved in the practices described," Miller testified. "I think what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selections." He explained that the IRS had received some 70,000 applications for tax-exempt status, but that they have just 150 staffers assigned to process them all.

Of course, Miller could be wrong or even lying for some unknown reason, and the IG's report could also be wrong or deficient in uncovering the full story of what really went on --- further investigation is certainly called for --- but no evidence, none, has surfaced at this point to counter the actual information offered by either of them.

In the meantime, a handful of other journalists seem to finally be taking a closer look at what really happened here, now that the bulk of them have already allowed the opportunistic "scandal" genie to escape from the Drudge Report/Fox "News" bottle.

Bloomberg News, for example, reports that several Democratic-leaning organizations also received the same close scrutiny and seemingly invasive questioning from the IRS that "Tea Party" related groups received.

As the IG's report details (to those who actually bothered to read it!), all of this was a part of the federal agency's poorly executed attempt to screen a flood of incoming applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) status in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. That infamous ruling, essentially paving the way for unrestricted money for campaign spending, resulted in an exponential increase in political organizations attempting to take part in a tax-exempt "social welfare organization" racket which illegally flooded the 2010 and 2012 election cycles with transparently partisan spending on direct political advertisements and other related efforts --- in violation of the (unenforced) law.

The number of applications by politically-related groups that the IRS was attempting to deal with had doubled between 2010 and 2012, following Citizens United, and the initial, poorly-thought-out attempts to identify such applications by the agency's department tasked with doing so, according to the IG, resulted in the SNAFU ("Situation Normal, All Fucked Up") currently in question.

The IGs report similarly:

failed to offer any evidence that nefarious partisan politics played any role in the bad IRS decisions;

failed to offer evidence that either the Obama Administration or any of its political operatives had anything to do with any of it;

found that "Tea Party" related groups made up only a minority --- just one-third --- of the total number of groups flagged for closer scrutiny (the report doesn't offer the political leanings of the majority two-thirds which were also flagged);

and revealed that none of the flagged organizations had their application for tax-exempt status denied (though, as we would later learn, a Democratic-leaning group did.)

As we noted yesterday, new information could still emerge to change our views on all of this. A criminal investigation has been announced by the DoJ, and it's our guess that Republicans won't ever stop pretending this is a "Nixonian"-like administration "cover-up!", even if they are able to see an independent Special Prosecutor appointed (which might be perfectly appropriate here.) We would, however, prefer to fall on the side of not ruining people's lives unnecessarily until actual evidence emerges to support the idea of doing so. That consideration doesn't seem to play a part in the calculations of much of the corporate media, the Republican Party or even the Obama Administration, unfortunately.

At the end of this week of "scandals" --- one ("Benghazi") which is completely fake, one ("IRS") which appears to be little more than a non-criminal bureaucratic blunder that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Obama Administration; and one (DoJ caught massively spying on the phone records of AP reporters) which is very real, but which both Obama and the Republicans seem to feel perfectly fine about --- it appears that in its frantic rush to judgment, the Obama administration has once again, in the case of the IRS "scandal", helped to amplify a non-scandal in order to appear "tough" and "in control" of it.

Obama is too hot on the trigger to fire people at the least but of controversy before finding out the details. Why does he act so quickly on the GOP stink bombs and take forever on the truly important issues? His lack of loyalty for those in office is demoralizing.

Accommodation is not always best policy. Tho Obama seems a supremely confident, his admin acts very insecure. He reminds of a manager that gets a complaint about an underling and takes it at face value and throws underling under bus before even hearing their side of incident. Personally, as a mamager, I always give the benefit of the doubt to my employees, while certainly being concerned about customer service and team plat with other departments. Sometimes I'm dissappointment by employees, but usually the complaint turns out to be a misplaced understanding. Sometimes my employees did nothing wrong except not oresenting their case in a diplomatic, comvincing manner. Once I get whole story from employee, I can often mediate with the complaining party, giving them a fuller understanding, give them perspective why we did what we did, making them feel taken seriously while less upset.

Of course, the complainer isn't necessarily purposefully trying to make me look bad, but that happens sometimes also...and my position is never helped by caving to hysteric claims before I get full story.

Personally, I think this comes with confidence and principled ideals. I see other managers that cave all the time, it doesn't help them long-term and it seems to come from an insecure perspective.

I sort of get it, they are in this weird DC bubble where every sniffle is jumped on, it starts to get to you. I remember once working for a black community organization in Oakland in the 80s. Being as I was white, they asked me to work in white neighborhoods, fundraising and informing. After a few days of talking to white people about police brutality in black community, making case war on drugs was essentially a war on black community because of its horrible racial-bias and getting almost uniform rejection or conte station of my every point, I started to feel crazy, even though I was confident in the facts and analysis I was making and none if the folks arguing with me had anything in facts or analysis that refuted my claims. Then occasionally a black person, working class or well-educate professional, and they would just agree and often add all kinds of extra information, analysis and anecdotes to back the claims I was making. Then I wouldn't feel so crazy, knew reality in black community was as I represented it. But still, all the adamant and often hostile push back on basic irrefutable facts I got from so many white people did make me feel crazy. Of course now, these views are much more mainstream.

I'm glad the IRS is in the docket...Don't care who is going after them.
And of course there is bias here. It's probably not systemic and the GOP is over the top as usual... but "progressives" have been screeching inanities about the tea party since it began. Julian Bond being the most recent when he stated that the TP was "admittedly racist"... huh? Too many progressives tend to simply make things up about groups they dislike. I'm sure Obama cultists at the IRS took cues and chose words they knew would disfavor the Right. Choosing the words "tea party" is both streamlining AND bias. They didn't choose "occupy" or "progressive".
Regardless, I promise you if Bush was president and his IRS did this to the left they would be apoplectic. MSNBC would be foaming just like Fox is now.
I'm really sick of one side acting like they don't do the exact same thing when the shoe is on the other foot. Meantime, I'm fine with the IRS getting hammered and if Obama is taken down a few notches I'm good with that too. The Left needs to stop being so snotty about the Tea Party. In fact, the real Left ought to be forming alliances with the Tea Party.

Yes, until there is some sort of larger group awakening to the reality that this sort of fake scandal, all with all the fake outrage in response to it, along with the hapless Obama Administration bending over forever backwards so that they will somehow mollify an opposition that will never be mollified is ALL the result of a shift in cultural consciousness expertly manipulated by the rightwing noise machine, we're gonna be spending a helluva lot of time on a merry-go-round to nowhere.

David I responded yesterday twice to Brads "point" that in the IG's report there is no indication that the increased scrutiny of conservative groups was politically motivated. I very nicely pointed out that the IG's report specifically states "policy positions" were one of the criteria for increased scrutiny. I've now pointed it out again. Brad chooses to ignore a fact that directly contridicts him.

So Steve, please explain to me why it is inappropriate for the IRS to consider the "policy positions" of applicants for 501(c)(3) status when the applicant for such status is claiming to be a non-partisan, charitable organization?

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

"Tea Party" groups are the very essence of "action organizations" that devote "a substantial part of their activities" to political campaigns.

The American hard right is a piece of work. It violates the law by illegally claiming tax-exempt status and then, in a manner reminiscent to the little boy who murdered his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he's an orphan, cries "foul" when the IRS uses "policy positions" to determine whether they are qualified for tax exempt status.

Nice job changing the subject Ernie, but there's a point here. Brad says there is no indication of any political reason for the increased scrutiny of certain groups. Clearly that is "misinformation" as he loves to accuse me of spreading. Because the IG report specifically states policy positions, which sounds pretty political.

It's not inappropriate. It becomes inappropriate when the consideration is one sided based on political ideology. So far we've heard the IRS apologize to conservative groups, I've not yet heard them apologize to progressive groups. I'm betting that the reason for the lack of that apology is because there are no progressive groups who are owed an apology. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

By Brad's pie chart on Thursday, there are 202 groups that are the unknown. He of course gave an example of some poor progressive group who finds and trains women to run for office (decidedly political) and were denied the tax exempt status. My bet is those 202 will have a handful of progressive groups like the one mentioned above, and the rest will have been found by keywords such as: family, life, marriage, etc.

Steve,
You conveniently completely ignore one of Brad's main points. There have been very real persecutions of progressives(as he detailed). There is barely a peep out of Washington in objection. There is primarily complicity in the persecution. How does that figure into your equation?

Also, where were all the hearings in Washington over the persecution of Occupy?

Also, how is Ernie directly responding to your question "changing the subject"?

According to your reasoning, since we never heard any apologizing for any of the well-documented politically motivated persecution mentioned above, it didn't happen.

Steve, policy positions can be political or not. The IRS cannot know unless the org gives them the bylaws, mission statements, and other paperwork detailing the purpose of the org. All orgs get scrutinized. I had to go through it in 1978-79 for my 501(c)3 educational org, and it took the IRS about a year to give us the go. There is no scandal here.

But it sure seems from what I'm reading and hearing that overtly political action groups want a free pass. I say NO tax exempt status for any political group whatsoever, whether progressive or regressive.

For now, while the IG notes that it was inappropriate and unfair to use words [“Tea Party,” “Patriots” and “9/12 Project”] in the titles of the organizations as a way of identifying groups that might be participating in illegal campaign activity, the report makes no charge that they were doing so for political reasons.

Steve, who uses the self-described label of "wingnut," expressed the belief, @9, repeated @11, that the fact that the IG report said that "policy positions" were utilized by the IRS as a criteria to determine whether an applicant qualifies for 501(c)(3) status somehow refuted Brad's point.

Obviously, Steve lacks the sophistication to appreciate the subtle, yet fundamental distinctions that both Brad and the Inspector General applied to their respective analyses of this pseudo "scandal."

1. Because the question of whether an applicant actually qualifies for 501(c)(3) status is dependent upon whether the applicant is a genuine, non-partisan charitable organization --- as opposed to "action organization" that devotes a substantial part of its activity to political campaigning --- it is indeed appropriate for the IRS to examine the "policy positions" of the applicant, irrespective of whether those policy positions are left, right or center.

If it labels itself as a political "action organization," if it devotes a substantial part of its activities to carrying out the policies of a political "action organization," there's a very good chance that the applicant is a political "action organization" and not a genuine, non-partisan charitable organization.

2. So long as the IRS bases its determination to grant or deny 501(c)(3) status on the basis of whether the applicant is or is not an "action organization," irrespective of whether the applicant's policy positions are left, right or center, the IRS decision comports with its legal obligation to enforce the law.

3. Brad was correct when he wrote that the IG report does not state that the IRS had scrutinized applications "for political reasons."

It is the essence of a good propagandist to never admit they are wrong. I'm sure Wingnut Steve won't disappoint in that regard with his next WTF reply.

Oh, and as to that portion of Steve's high and mighty comment @11: " It becomes inappropriate when the consideration is one sided based on political ideology."

Did you miss that portion of Brad's article, which recites:

Bloomberg News, for example, reports that several Democratic-leaning organizations also received the same close scrutiny and seemingly invasive questioning from the IRS that "Tea Party" related groups received.

The fact that the "IRS apologized to conservative groups" does not establish that it did anything wrong. Neither does the fact that Obama threw the head of the IRS under the bus.

I recall similar apologies and reactions from the Obama administration surrounding Shirley Sherrod, all of which had to be later be retracted once even the corporate owned MSM came to realize they'd been scammed by a right wing canard.

Did you ever consider that the failure to apologize to progressive organizations, like the church which came under IRS scrutiny because a pastor gave an anti-war sermon just prior to the 2004 election, flows from the fact that progressive groups lack the political clout that comes with the wealth of the right wing billionaires who fund and control the so-called "Tea Party"?

Regarding this non-scandal, I also found out that this issue was raised in Congress in early 2012 and W-appointed IRS Commish Schulman made it clear that submitting an app for official 501(c)3 or 4 status is VOLUNTARY; people submit to questions so their org gets official approval by the IRS. He said that tax law is clear that if they want, they can just submit a Form 990 at the end of the year claiming that status.

So an org doesn't even need to submit to this kind of scrutiny, as long as their behavior conforms to 501(c)4 status during the tax year covered by Form 990. If not, they won't get to claim tax exempt status which would affect donations received that tax year.

Ernie makes excellent points. I stand corrected and apologize for the inaccurate statements I have made here, and for not understanding the "subtle yet fundamental distinctions" which must be applied.

Ernie, my changing the subject was in thinking that you are trying to turn the issue into a 501 debate rather than a debate of what all the news agencies and networks are erroneously reporting is the real problem.

I responded yesterday twice to Brads "point" that in the IG's report there is no indication that the increased scrutiny of conservative groups was politically motivated. I very nicely pointed out that the IG's report specifically states "policy positions" were one of the criteria for increased scrutiny. I've now pointed it out again. Brad chooses to ignore a fact that directly contridicts him.

Huh? A) I didn't "ignore" anything. You'll be shocked to learn that I can't read and/or respond to all comments here (and hadn't noticed that one until you just pointed it out.) and B) That comment doesn't "contridict" anything that I've asserted.

The Determinations Unit developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names. These applications (hereafter referred to as potential political cases) were forwarded to a team of specialists for review. Subsequently, the Determinations Unit expanded the criteria to inappropriately include organizations with other specific names (Patriots and 9/12) or policy positions.

In that previous comment, you asserted that the IG text above was evidence of "political motivation" within the IRS. Specifically, you wrote:

If there was no political motivation, why would the IG report clearly state that one of the criteria for increased scrutiny was "policy positions". That kinda sounds political doesn't it?

Well, what I actually said in the article you were responding to, was that the IG's report did not find "Any evidence that 'Tea Party' related groups were identified during this process for nefarious reasons" and that they found "No evidence that 'Tea Party' groups were targeted for political reasons" and "there is no evidence offered in the report that those words were chosen to target or disadvantage such groups for political reasons" and while "it was inappropriate and unfair to use words in the titles of the organizations as a way of identifying groups that might be participating in illegal campaign activity, the report makes no charge that they were doing so for political reasons" and that "the IG's report offers no evidence that any of it was done in order to knowingly disadvantage 'Tea Party' related groups in a political fashion."

So, hopefully what I actually was arguing there is now quite clear.

With that said, using "policy positions" to determine if they are political groups that deserve closer scrutiny, doesn't seem to "contridict" my argument in any way, shape or form.

If a stated "policy position" on an application says, for example, "We believe ObamaCare should be repealed" or "We support Republican policies" or "We want to see Republicans/Democrats elected to office" or "We believe Wall Street bankers should be prosecuted" or "We believe the government should spend money on stimulus programs to put people back to work", those statements of "policy position" might be an indication that the group might be doing political work that is in violation of tax code law and requires closer scrutiny before bestowing taxpayer subsidized tax-exempt status.

At one point, for example, the IRS unit had decided to flag "Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement."

Those are, of course, all "policy positions". So how does using any of those criteria, as they did, prove that the unit was "politically motivated", as you charge??? And how does that "contridict" (as you misspelled) my original assertions, quoted at length above???

Again, we may learn, at some point, that some of the folks in the unit had nefarious partisan political motivations for what they did. But, as of now --- based on all that we know (the IGs report, the (inappropriately fired) acting IRS Commissioner's testimony before Congress yesterday, all other reporting on this that I am familiar with) --- no such evidence or proof has been offered. Sorry.

Sorry, Gus, but I believe "cowardice" is the source of Obama's repeated "knee jerk reactions" starting with Rev. Wright, continuing through Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN and now the IRS.

Rather than standing with those who speak truth to power, and exposing the right wing smears in the process, our President seeks to distance himself from the fall out brought on by the libelous canards by throwing the smeared under the bus.

"You see," he appears to be saying, "if something was done that is inappropriate, it was them, not me." Thus, he swiftly joined in condemning Shirley Sherrod before he had any idea what really happened.

The one truth revealed by these contrived "scandals" is that our President's character is flawed.

Thank you for pointing out my misspelling Brad, and for going the extra mile to point it out several times for everyone else. I think the lesson we've learned here is that you will stoop to any level imaginable to disparage whomever may disagree with you. But, a spelling error? For real? I think you're being a little ridiculous.

But I have to say again, it's a little hard to take you complaining about Brad supposedly "stooping to any level imaginable to disparage whomever may disagree with (him)" after his rather mild poking at you. If that's stooping to any level, how would you characterize your recent gratuitously insulting suggestion that I "sober up"?

Are you aware of how attitudinal many of your comments sound/are to Brad, Ernie, and others? If you're gonna sling attitude around, how can you expect some attitude not to come back at you?

You manifest different standards for how you like to be treated and how you treat others.

While I certainly don't disagree with any of the substantive points Brad made @24 and understand why David Lasagna would, @28, post a retort to Steve's terse reply to Brad @27, I think all should give recognition to what amounts to a major positive concession that Steve made @22.

He has honestly acknowledged that he was wrong about this pseudo-"scandal". Maybe, just maybe, if we put away the slings and arrows, Steve will be more open to continuing an honest dialogue in the future.

Looking back at some of my old comments, I have to agree with you David. Guilty as charged of sometimes being a little too aggressive, and often getting frustrated at not having the level of eloquence others have to make my point.

This may sound a little weird, but after all we've all been through here, after reading Ernie and Steve's heartfelt back to back comments, I actually got choked up. Yes, if we can find some peace after all we've been at each other's throats, maybe there is hope.
love,
Dave

The TEA Party is a front for white supremacists who masquerade as a protest group but has given the game away with the bizarre imagery of Obama on their variously insulting placards. They hate the idea that a black man sits atop the Executive Branch of the US Government. They and their close allies and chorts in the US Congress are determined to make him pay for his audacity in running and being re-elected for the office of the Presidency. So, as a political group the tea-baggers have no stand as tax exempt organizations and their applications were rightfully scrutinized by the IRS.

Thank you for pointing out my misspelling Brad, and for going the extra mile to point it out several times for everyone else. I think the lesson we've learned here is that you will stoop to any level imaginable to disparage whomever may disagree with you. But, a spelling error? For real? I think you're being a little ridiculous.

Well, that's a very nice way to NOT have to respond to a single point in the very detailed response that I took the time to put together in response to your very serious assertions.

Sorry you were unable to have thick enough skin to overlook the incredible minimal ribbing I threw in there (largely because I needed to quote you, but didn't want to misquote you by spelling it the way you didn't). Incredibly lame, Steve.

As to those who fell for your either half-hearted or incredibly sarcastic "apologies"? I didn't.

You did make excellent points Brad, I already acknowledged the same to Ernie which are many of the same points, I'm willing to accept that I jumped the shark too quickly in my comment to you, and I'm willing to wait and see what actually happened vice jumping on a bandwagon.

And I am being sincere. I've been an ass too many times and resolve to try to be a better person. We're all americans and we all want what's best for the country. Angry dialogue arguing semantics defines stupidity. I'ma try to be a little less stupid. Happy Sunday.

Well, ain't this a bitch. Ernie and I believe we are witnessing a sea change with Steve and Brad is playing the bah humbug.

Brad,
All I can say is that if you're right and this is Steve just playing with our minds again, he's doing it in such a radically different way, with such different words and tone, I feel he'd have to be given points for creativity and style, anyway.

But me, for now?, I'm choosing to believe him.

And shit, Brad you're the one who helped set this all up by reading me and Steve the riot act a couple of comment sections back. In response to that I acknowledged my part in it and said I'd change. And I think Steve did, too.

And I am being sincere. I've been an ass too many times and resolve to try to be a better person. We're all americans and we all want what's best for the country. Angry dialogue arguing semantics defines stupidity. I'ma try to be a little less stupid.

Fair enough. Given the speed of your turnaround on this thread, after so many months (years?), I hope you forgive my initial dubiousness. I'll take you at your word under the presumption you're sincere. I also hope that doesn't keep you from challenging, questioning, holding feet to fire (including mine). My objections have never been to that.

Irwin,
I've heard the masterstroke opinion applied to Obama's actions in the past. Used to be skeptical, but hoped I was wrong. Have come to be convinced there is nothing resembling masterstrokedness in his actions/posturing. It's more like he's HAD a master stroke if he thinks caving to bullshit time and again is the answer to anything but how to be a co-dependent enabler to madness.

Right I probably should've included the key word
'potential' in front of 'masterstroke' since following up the firing with every Democrat bringing up the lack of a Director at every one of the dozen hearings to come this summer is critical.

The last masterstroke I know of was 8 years ago with President George Bush brilliantly dumping the entire Hurricane Katrina response fiasco on that jerk Micael Brown - "Brownie you are doing a heckuva job." Brown was speechless.

That prima donna inherited a mess at FEMA thanks to Bush budget cuts and reorganization under DHS and Bush neatly shifted blame.

I work at a foundation. Part of my job is doing due diligence research on 501(c)3 charities before we make donations. We are prohibited from making donations to 501(c)4 organizations (except via some very convoluted processes, and only for the true "social welfare" groups, like volunteer fire brigades). Much of this comments section has conflated the two types of groups.

This scandal really boils down to the following:
1) there is a REAL epidemic of illegitimate 501(c)4 organizations which are little more than money-laundering fronts for big money political concerns.
2) The IRS is understaffed to deal with this flood of new (legitmate and dubious) organizations.
3) Some IRS workers tried to deal with their unmanageable caseload by adopting "profiling" rules that seemed sensible from a practical perspective but were inappropriate from a fairness perspective.
4) When this sort of thing comes up, as it often does, in police, immigration and homeland security policy discussions, conservatives usually take the opposite position.